Masons have nearly predictable means and methods, often less
than savory. Whether it's because they're pushing their ideas:

* In order to sell books.
* Rampant paranoia or hate.
* Their altered belief system (they think it will get
them standing before the "Great White Throne" of the
"Great Architect of the Universe" in the
"Great White
Lodge of Freemasonry" of Sirius, which they believe they
will go to when they die if their masonic "work" has
not been "slip-shod").
* Their In-Group World View has been so much altered
that for practical purposes of debate they have
diminished capacity, i.e. they have become insane.

Masons use many different tactics to support their position.
To further their goals, they'll use books published by 'vanity'
publishers who may be Masonic as well. They will claim that
"Pro" writings about Masons or Masonry cannot be published by
'legitimate' publishers because they're all
"Anti"-Masonically-controlled. (In reality, it's because their tracts
fail to meet the 'standards' of research required by traditional
publishers - but often Masonic Propaganda and Dissembling
Specialists fails to let truth
enter the discussion). In addition, there are "Open Houses"
and "Parades" held in the United States each year gathering
a small group of Masons. Web pages, sometimes thinly disguised
as information about
"Difficult Questions about Freemasonry", and postings to various
online venues add to their constant stream of misinformation.

In this section, we talk about those who're visible in their
Masonic activities (i.e., not hiding behind some on-line
identity which changes frequently). We also provide a
review of some internal inconsistencies in their arguments
and offer some of our thoughts on responding to 'Masonic
Disinformation Propagandists'.

The repertoire of techniques is varied but most involve
simple deceit. Common tactics are listed below.

Change the Subject Guilt by Association
Using Different Standards If You Were ...
Refuse to Answer Outright Lies
Oft-Repeated Falsehoods Quibble over Semantics
Faulty Logic Assumptive Positions
Prove It! Straw Man
Behave More Like a Christian or a Non "Stupid Athiest"

Change the Subject: In our daily lives, we generally experience
a fairly straight path when we discuss things with others.
We're not experienced with those who would deliberately mislead
or misdirect. Thus, when this tactic of deceit is used, Non
-Masons
are caught off-guard. Assuming that the person with whom they're
dealing has the same degree of honesty and integrity as
themselves, it's a surprise to find that they're being led
around in circles.

Guilt by Association: Those defending Masons and Masonry
will point out human foibles or errors an individual critic
of Masonry may have made as if somehow once a man becomes a
"Anti" (as masons deceptively and derisively term
those who question Masonic Disinformation tactics)
, he loses all right to individual foibles . Because
one person does a wrong, the argument goes, "Anti"-Masons are all
guilty of it. What those Masonic Dissemblers fail to acknowledge
is that there were also those with whom they have been
associated in the past engaged in similar wrongs.

Using Different Standards: Masons will use any convenient
argument to support their position. Despite the passage of
decades (or even centuries), they'll readily apply 1850s or
1770s standards to those in the 1990s! Yes George
Washington owned slaves and Albert Pike and Nathan
Forest were in the KKK, but then so did everybody
else ? Then obviously - so the argument
goes - he was a very good Mason! It's convenient to
use the political correctness of today to condemn
critics of Masonry by branding them "Haters" as practiced
professional dissemblers. Don't fall for this sometimes
overlooked ploy.

"If You Were....": This presumptive position often taken creates
an untenable position - which is exactly the way the Masonic
Disinformation Propagandist wishes it. "If you were
to hit your wife...." is not far from the question "When did
you stop beating your wife?". Such innuendo should be
recognized for what it is.

Refuse To Answer: In an attempt to understand the motives
of "hatred", the Masonic supporter will often ask, "Why
do you feel this way?" or "What religion do you belong to?",
or "You're a Stupid Athiest aren't you?" hoping that the answers will somehow provide enlightenment
into the rationale for the position the "Anti"-Mason is taking.
As might be expected, those Masons who criticize those
who want to 'tear down the walls of
secrecy' they see in Masonry are often the most secretive
themselves. Certainly, there's the exception who will
even boast about certain parts of their lives, almost
inviting the onlooker to become involved. In reality,
though, they've done nothing more than to set a trap
which they'll later use against others. "Why I even had
some "Anti"-Mason show up at my door the other night.
He had tracked me down and...."

Outright Lies: In our section on the categories of Masonic
disinformation and propagansa activity, we identify several
outright lies. This, however, does not stop them from being
spread again and again.

Oft-Repeated Falsehoods: Sometimes when a charge is made,
it's difficult to determine whether it's true or not.
"Not all of the police who're 'on the take' in London
are Masons." is an example seen recently. Of course,
this presumes that the one making the statement knows
not only the Masonic membership status of every London
police officer but also all of those who engage in illegal
activities. It should be clear to even the most cursory
observer how foolish this is - but to those who use this
tactic, it makes perfect sense. Further, perpetuation of
such foolishness will surely occur at some later time
("I read somewhere that all of the critics of Freemasonry....").

Quibbling Over Semantics: This is a ploy of some who have
engaged in these debates for a long period of time.
One Masonic Disinformation Specialist from Maine, USA has
frequently argued that he's not an "Anti" Mason Critic
but rather "Anti" Mason Critical !!! and furthers
this by saying that he specifically opposes the Scottish
Rite of Freemasonry. When called an Masonic Propagandist
and Disinformation Specialist , he'll protest loudly.
In reality it's merely a technique he uses in order to give
him further opportunity to expound his hatred
(and also encourage the Non-Mason (who Masons derisively
refer to as the "Profane" and "Cowans") to think that if
only the question of language could be resolved, this
person would change his position).

Faulty Logic: We see it often in the arguments which start
with the wrong premise. For example: "All eggs are white.
This round object is white and has all the properties of
an egg. Therefore, this must be an egg." Wrong. You've
forgotten (or perhaps don't know) that eggs come in brown
also. It is an easy trap to fall into.

Assumptive Positions: One of the most common tactics used
against those who critize Masonic Propagada and Disinformation
Specialists is designed to provoke a response which ignores
the false premise.
"If a "Cowan" did (thus and so), what would you do?"
Of course, any time a "Profane" violates a law, rule,
or trust, we are all the lesser for it - and, being human,
that sometimes happens. This argument, however, often makes
wild and fanciful suppositions in order to provoke the
reader/listener into drawing the conclusion that such
things did/do indeed happen - and perhaps regularly.

"Prove It!": The reality is that negatives can rarely
be proven but detractors ignore this, always looking for
some other avenue to exploit. "Post all of the degree work
right here and we'll see what it says...." goes a common
challenge. Of course, regardless of what was posted, the
Masonic Disinformation Specialist will find some fault,
even if it's a spelling error - and then will proceed to
make some particular issue out of that. ("See?
Those stupid Cowans. They can't even spell!")

Straw Man: One very common tactic used by Masonic
Disinformation and Propaganda Specialists is to put forth
a 'Straw Man': one who claims to have 'seen the darkness'
and now can explain to the world from the 'inside
perspective' the many supposed problems with those who
criticize Masons and Masonry. Most of these are readily seen as a
total fraud (the supposed Mason who's now a 'minister'
but is apparently too embarrassed to reveal his
denominational affiliation or the person who claims
to be a 'high ranking Church Official' who'll reveal all).
To the unknowing, however, these pretenders are difficult
to discern and can be very persuasive.

Behave More Like a Christian or a Non "Stupid Athiest": We've always found it ironic
that those who believe Masonry to be so very right would
use this argument. It seems, though, that whenever a
Non-Mason has been goaded enough and lashes out at his
tormentor, you frequently see the retort "That's not
very Christian Behavior is it?", or "You're a Stupid
Athiest aren't you?". Strange that in one
breath they want us to abandon Christianity or our right
not to "believe" but in the next, they remind us of the standards we set for ourselves
and encourage us to act in accordance with them.
Masonic Disinformation and Dissembling is pretty strange....

It's frustrating. A person who tries to follow the
tenets of tolerance and truth assumes the best about
his accuser and will believe that a clear presentation
of facts will be sufficient to explain things.
As you'll see as you question Masonry, however, not
everything is what it seems - and if you're willing
not to believe the Masonic rhetoric without proof from them,
we trust that you'll find the evidence we provide -
even more convincing.

A Comprehensive Listing of Masonic "Divert the Discourse"
Gambits

1. Hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil. Regardless
of what you know, don't discuss it -- especially if you are a public figure or
Lodge official. If it's not reported, it didn't happen, and you never have
to deal with the issues.

2. Become incredulous and indignant. Avoid discussing key
issues and instead focus on side issues which can be used show the topic as
being critical of some otherwise sacrosanct group or theme. This is also known
as the "How dare you!" gambit.

3. Create rumor mongers. Avoid discussing issues by
describing all charges, regardless of venue or evidence, as mere rumors and
wild accusations. Other derogatory terms mutually exclusive of truth may work
as well. This method works especially well with a silent press, because the
only way the public can learn of the facts are through such "arguable rumors".
If you can associate the material with the Internet, use this fact to certify
it a "wild rumor" which can have no basis in fact.

4. Use a straw man. Find or create a seeming element of
your opponent's argument which you can easily knock down to make yourself look
good and the opponent to look bad. Either make up an issue you may safely
imply exists based on your interpretation of the opponent/opponent
arguments/situation, or select the weakest aspect of the weakest charges.
Amplify their significance and destroy them in a way which appears to debunk
all the charges, real and fabricated alike, while actually avoiding discussion
of the real issues.

5. Sidetrack opponents with name calling and ridicule.
This is also known as the primary attack the messenger ploy, though other
methods qualify as variants of that approach. Associate opponents with
unpopular titles such as "kooks", "right-wing", "liberal", "left-wing",
"terrorists", "conspiracy buffs", "radicals", "militia", "racists", "religious
fanatics", "sexual deviates", and so forth. This makes others shrink from
support out of fear of gaining the same label, and you avoid dealing with
issues.

6. Hit and Run. In any public forum, make a brief attack
of your opponent or the opponent position and then scamper off before an
answer can be fielded, or simply ignore any answer. This works extremely well
in Internet and letters-to -the-editor environments where a steady stream of
new identities can be called upon without having to explain criticism
reasoning -- simply make an accusation or other attack, never discussing
issues, and never answering any subsequent response, for that would dignify
the opponent's viewpoint.

7. Question motives. Twist or amplify any fact which
could so taken to imply that the opponent operates out of a hidden personal
agenda or other bias. This avoids discussing issues and forces the accuser on
the defensive.

8. Invoke authority. Claim for yourself or associate
yourself with authority and present your argument with enough "jargon" and
"minutiae" to illustrate you are "one who knows", and simply say it isn't so
without discussing issues or demonstrating concretely why or citing sources.

9. Play Dumb. No matter what evidence or logical
argument is offered, avoid discussing issues with denial they have any
credibility, make any sense, provide any proof, contain or make a point, have
logic, or support a conclusion. Mix well for maximum effect.

10. Associate opponent charges with old news. A
derivative of the straw man usually, in any large-scale matter of high
visibility, someone will make charges early on which can be or were already
easily dealt with. Where it can be foreseen, have your own side raise a straw
man issue and have it dealt with early on as part of the initial contingency
plans. Subsequent charges, regardless of validity or new ground uncovered, can
usually them be associated with the original charge and dismissed as simply
being a rehash without need to address current issues -- so much the better
where the opponent is or was involved with the original source.

11. Establish and rely upon fall-back positions. Using a
minor matter or element of the facts, take the "high road" and "confess" with
candor that some innocent mistake, in hindsight, was made -- but that
opponents have seized on the opportunity to blow it all out of proportion and
imply greater criminalities which, "just isn't so." Others can reinforce this
on your behalf, later. Done properly, this can garner sympathy and respect for
"coming clean" and "owning up" to your mistakes without addressing more
serious issues.

12. Enigmas have no solution. Drawing upon the overall
umbrella of events surrounding the crime and the multitude of players and
events, paint the entire affair as too complex to solve. This causes those
otherwise following the matter to begin to loose interest more quickly without
having to address the actual issues.

13. Alice in Wonderland Logic. Avoid discussion of the
issues by reasoning backwards with an apparent deductive logic in a way that
forbears any actual material fact.

14. Demand complete solutions. Avoid the issues by
requiring opponents to solve the crime at hand completely, a ploy which works
best for items qualifying for rule 10.

15. Fit the facts to alternate conclusions. This requires
creative thinking unless the crime was planned with contingency conclusions in
place.

16. Vanishing evidence and witnesses. If it does not
exist, it is not fact, and you won't have to address the issue.

17. Change the subject. Usually in connection with one of
the other ploys listed here, find a way to side-track the discussion with
abrasive or controversial comments in hopes of turning attention to a new,
more manageable topic. This works especially well with companions who can
"argue" with you over the new topic and polarize the discussion arena in order
to avoid discussing more key issues.

18. Emotionalize, Antagonize, and Goad Opponents. If you
can't do anything else, chide and taunt your opponents and draw them into
emotional responses which will tend to make them look foolish and overly
motivated, and generally render their material somewhat less coherent. Not
only will you avoid discussing the issues in the first instance, but even if
their emotional response addresses the issue, you can further avoid the issues
by then focusing on how "sensitive they are to criticism".

19. Ignore proof presented, demand impossible proofs.
This is perhaps a variant of the "play dumb" rule. Regardless of what material
may be presented by an opponent in public forums, claim the material
irrelevant and demand proof that is impossible for the opponent to come by (it
may exist, but not be at his disposal, or it may be something which is known
to be safely destroyed or withheld, such as a murder weapon). In order to
completely avoid discussing issues may require you to categorically deny and
be critical of media or books as valid sources, deny that witnesses are
acceptable, or even deny that statements made by government or other
authorities have any meaning or relevance.

20. False evidence. Whenever possible, introduce new
facts or clues designed and manufactured to conflict with opponent
presentations as useful tools to neutralize sensitive issues or impede
resolution. This works best when the crime was designed with contingencies for
the purpose, and the facts cannot be easily separated from the fabrications.

21. Call a Grand Jury, Special Prosecutor, or other
empowered investigative body. Subvert the (process) to your benefit and
effectively neutralize all sensitive issues without open discussion. Once
convened, the evidence and testimony are required to be secret when properly
handled. For instance, if you own the prosecuting attorney, it can insure a
Grand Jury hears no useful evidence and that the evidence is sealed an
unavailable to subsequent investigators. Once a favorable verdict (usually,
this technique is applied to find the guilty innocent, but it can also be used
to obtain charges when seeking to frame a victim) is achieved, the matter can
be considered officially closed.

22. Manufacture a new truth. Create your own expert(s),
group(s), author(s), leader(s) or influence existing ones willing to forge new
ground via scientific, investigative, or social research or testimony which
concludes favorably. In this way, if you must actually address issues, you can
do so authoritatively.

23. Create bigger distractions. If the above does not
seem to be working to distract from sensitive issues, or to prevent unwanted
media coverage of unstoppable events such as trials, create bigger news
stories (or treat them as such) to distract the multitudes.

24. Silence critics. If the above methods do not prevail,
consider removing opponents from circulation by some definitive solution so
that the need to address issues is removed entirely. This can be by their
death, arrest and detention, blackmail or destruction of their character by
release of blackmail information, or merely by proper intimidation with
blackmail or other threats.

25. Vanish. If you are a key holder of secrets or
otherwise overly illuminated and you think the heat is getting too hot, to
avoid the issues, vacate the kitchen.

Send us in confidence details of cases where you think
Organized Freemasonry has personally hurt yourself,
family, friends, aquaintances, or community. We would
also appreciate any additional background information,
links, and references on Freemasonry and the Occult.
Help us take a bite out of Freemasonry.